Are we Democrats being dishonest about the Bush-Pozen Social Security plan? The latest NRO column from Rich Lowry drew fire from Max Sawicky and Matthew Yglesias. Matthew points out how dishonest Lowry’s op-ed was. But this line is absolutely stupid:
Shouldn’t a liberal welcome a proposal demanding sacrifice from the wealthy?
Let me get this straight. Tax increases on those making over $100,000 a year impact the middle class, but someone making $30,000 a year is wealthy.
Update: William Buckley wants George W. Bush to define his Social Security proposals in terms of the morality of balancing budgets and blames deficit spending on Lord Keynes:
But what crept into the act, with the acceptance of deficit spending as required for national economic policy, was an attitude of detachment toward the old principle that you should not spend what you do not have. And this detachment is degenerate, as witness popular political attitudes on the matter of Social Security.
Buckley forgets to mention that U.S. fiscal policy had strived to reduce real Federal debt except during periods of recession and major wars before 1981. Keynes is not to blame for Reagan and Bush43’s fiscal irresponsibility.
Update II: Trent Lott was FOR the Pozen plan BEFORE he was AGAINST it. And true to form – Senator Lott thinks we need to reduce the “explosive growth” in benefits.